02-09-2012 03:06 PM
Hi All,
I have a MDS9509 with port channels going to my Cisco blade switches on my HP Proliant blade enclosure.
I have NO ports left on my MDS9509, but DO have some remaining on the blade enclosure.
The question is, can i port channel from the blade enclosure to another edge switch (MDS9148)?
Is that a supported configuration/Best Practice and what are the ramifications if I do that?
So I'm going from Core, to edge and then to edge switch with port channel.
Thanks,
Matt
Solved! Go to Solution.
02-15-2012 08:21 AM
Hi Matthew,
Sorry for the misunderstanding, your to-be diagram cleared up a lot for me :-)
First off, yes, it will work. There's no reason it shouldn't and if you have the external ports free on your 9124e, you can hook up a new switch.
It's far from a conventional design, because blade switches are supposed to go in the Edge. It's not a best practice.
What I would recommend is that you move some of the storage from your edge to the 9148, and treat it as a collapsed core, sharing an edge switch (the blade switch). You can then ISL the 9148 and the 9509 together into a somewhat sensible topology.
So for one fabric this would be
(disk)---9148 --- 9509 -- (disks) (some moved to the left to free up space for ISLs)
\ /
\ /
9124e
Or you can contact your sales team and look to swap some Linecards with higher port density ones.
Lastly I would like to note that, however you link up the switches, most combinations available to you will 'work'. So as a temp solution you can go ahead with the (core - blade - edge) scenario. Just know that you'll be introducing bottlenecks and potential weak points into your network.
02-15-2012 08:45 AM
Hi Matthew,
No problem, glad I could help! If you're satisfied with the answer, please mark the question as answered so other forum users can benefit from this info as well
HTH,
Kris
02-10-2012 03:19 AM
Hi Matt,
Short answer: No,a single fc port-channel needs to run parallel point-to-point between 2 devices (Host === Switch). a V-shaped topology is not supported or even possible.
BUT!
What you CAN do is make 2 port-channels, one going to one edge switch and the other to another edge switch.
So you will have something like
Core
// \\
Edge1 Edge2
\\ //
Blade Switch
You will end up with 2 paths from your bladeswitch to your core, and FSPF math will determine which path is used. If they're equal cost (seems like you would want this) then load-balancing will (in default config) send Exchanges over both links.
This makes your topology more complex but it's supported. (Conditionally, I made several assumptions about the rest of your fabric )
I hope this clarifies port-channels for you.
HTH,
/Kris
02-10-2012 05:16 AM
Kris,
This is what I currently have keeping in mind I have two separate fabrics.. Four ports for each switch.
Core1 Core2
|||| ||||
Blade Switch1 Blade Switch2
I guess this is what I was hoping to do on each fabric, but you state that it’s not supported.
1) From core to blade and then from blade to edge.
Core1 Core2
|||| ||||
Blade Switch1 Blade Switch2
|||| ||||
Edge1 Edge2
Regards,
Matt
02-10-2012 09:03 AM
Kris,
Does that make sense?
I have Fabric_A Core1 to Blade1, Fabric_B Core2 to Blade2.
I'm asking if I can add a separate edge switch (9148) to each Fabric?
Core1 to Blade1 then to Edge1
Core2 to Blade2 then to Edge2
Or do I need to port channel off of the director/core (MDS9509) only?
Matt
02-15-2012 08:21 AM
Hi Matthew,
Sorry for the misunderstanding, your to-be diagram cleared up a lot for me :-)
First off, yes, it will work. There's no reason it shouldn't and if you have the external ports free on your 9124e, you can hook up a new switch.
It's far from a conventional design, because blade switches are supposed to go in the Edge. It's not a best practice.
What I would recommend is that you move some of the storage from your edge to the 9148, and treat it as a collapsed core, sharing an edge switch (the blade switch). You can then ISL the 9148 and the 9509 together into a somewhat sensible topology.
So for one fabric this would be
(disk)---9148 --- 9509 -- (disks) (some moved to the left to free up space for ISLs)
\ /
\ /
9124e
Or you can contact your sales team and look to swap some Linecards with higher port density ones.
Lastly I would like to note that, however you link up the switches, most combinations available to you will 'work'. So as a temp solution you can go ahead with the (core - blade - edge) scenario. Just know that you'll be introducing bottlenecks and potential weak points into your network.
02-15-2012 08:41 AM
Thanks Kris,
This is good information that I can use to determine how I’m going to implement this SAN and the new 9148 switch.
Matt
02-15-2012 08:45 AM
Hi Matthew,
No problem, glad I could help! If you're satisfied with the answer, please mark the question as answered so other forum users can benefit from this info as well
HTH,
Kris
06-05-2012 10:31 AM
Kris,
Regarding the port channel configuration.
1) When I port channel off of the MDS9509 with two ISL's. Should I use two different blades on the 9509 or is ok to use a single blade with two open ports?
2) Since I believe my new edge switch (SN6000) will have the NX-OS on it and my MDS has version (3.1.2a), will there be a compatability issue when I go to port channel them together?
Matt
06-13-2012 02:52 PM
1) you definitely want to use two different blades if available, you want to avoid single point of failure.
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide